this just really bothers me, i noticed that in the books all men, and everything else on saurons side (except in the first age anyways...) are crude, barbaric, low quality and just arent very civilized sounding (again dont kill me, or flame me...) is it just me or is this a little odd? it kind of bothers me that middle earth's biggest threat is a bunch of low level ill equipped orcs and wild men and guys with beards and axes. they just dont sound like much of a super powered threat, im not bashing jjr or the books but it just doesnt seem like the forces of darkness is not really anything that could have stood a chance against gondor and rohan alone in the third age :\ (a apologize for speaking me mind but i need to compare this also :] ) in the second punic war (the war for middle earth if you please) the carthages were like super powers, so was the romans, even though hannibals 26,000 troops annihilated romes 120,000 some what army pretty much the same as the forces of morder, only better, well equipped not very well led but atleast a little better and arent a bunch of wild men :angry2: it just bothers me that all of the allies of sauron are plain crude, just because there on the side of evil, how many times have you heard of the forces of evil being crude (not CRUEL, crude) wouldnt it bother you if all the good guys were mean to everyone but the bad guys are nice and give things away? it is like this in a twisted way, i doubt the romans were crude and badly equipped (neither for the carthaginians but i think both of them were pretty bad civilizations, still they were well equipped and highly cultural and all that.) i want to hear of some powerful allie of sauron who had well made armor and weapons and were well organized and led, it just feels like it is in black and white, if your serving evil you will be destroyed completely, that isnt really fair in any shape or size, and if you serve good your good, completely no matter... not no matter what but in most things (i dont want this because the books are finished, i dont want it to actually be changed in any way this is just my opinion is all.) (and not a starwars thing where the bad guys cant lose but for some stupid reason they lose anyways) again sorry but this just really irritates me, thank you for lending an ear <_< :construction:

Well, firstly,

A roman soldier wasn't born a roman soldier. He was born a person, and naturally had values instilled in him as he grew up.

An Orc is an evil perversion of an Elf, by the original embodyment of all that is wrong, and twisted, Morgoth.

While the soldier may act cruely, he still has a choice. An Orc was created for the purpose of destruction, death, and filth from the very beginning.

Also, you have to remeber that the LOTR are fantasy books, not history. History has many shades of grey, while the typical fantasy themes tend to be pretty much black and white. Would you want to read a book that spends fifty pages exploring the hidden doubt of Grishnak?

The "wild men" were from places that were very desolate, due to the Numenoreans pushing them out when they moved in. It doesn't necessarily follow that they are technologically crude. The orcs, while definitely being crude when it comes to technology, sociology and just about everything else, there are a lot of them. Its all well and good that, for example Gondor, has its highly trained and well-equipped army of about 50,000 (this is just me guessing, it could be alot less), but if it comes up against 200,000 or 300,000 blood-thristy Orcs being driven by fear of their master, then the point is moot really.

By making the enemies of the good guys crude but numerous, Tolkien made forces of good seem more heroic; standing as a bastion against the torrent of evil pouring down upon them like black locusts, that sort of thing. It serves a literary purpose to write the Enemy as numerous but crude.

BTW; its not exactly a fair comparison with the Punic Wars. The Romans and the Carthaginians were both technologically skilled. The reason Hannibal killed so many Romans was due to his skill as a general, something that Tolkien missed out of his books (however, this is explained away by looking at his writing style. Sorry that i have to be so pedantic, but i'm a military history student and i feel its my duty to speak up. :lol:

i wasnt really talking much of the orcs (in no way, i wouldnt want to read 50 pages of an orc simply sitting in a tower and then getting into an arguement with another then eating him) :lol:
i was much more refering to the MEN of sauron, like the mouth of sauron
but this explains alot about them, thanks

Well - the Nazgul were kings of men once who were corrupted by the rings... and they were not ill-equipped or primitive.

Well, the Mouth of Sauron was a Black Numenorean, making him a descendant of the Numenoreans, and therefore akin to the Dunedain of Gondor and Arnor. There are bound to be others like him in Sauron's army. The Corsair mercenaries who Aragorn frightened off with the army of the Dead are even more closely related to the Dunedain of Gondor because they are the losers in a relatively recent (in the scope of all 3 ages) civil war in Gondor--specifically Umbar. The Southron culture always seemed to me to be relatively advanced in the manner of the medieval Arabs/Turks/Indians. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall a passage in the appendices which mentions the Gondorian Kings sending their sons to the Southron courts in order to learn about their culture. And come to think of it, it seems to me that the Southrons were meant to be a kind of character foil to the Rohirrim--meaning that they owed fealty to Mordor, rode on horses and Mumakil (oliphaunts), and a great chieftan of theirs is slain by Theoden before he is in turn slain. Also, the books mention a culture of men who were slaves of Sauron that farmed the fields around the large lake in Mordor (Nurnen, I think). Perhaps these were some of the brains behind much of Sauron's siege machinery, etc? It hardly strikes me that any given orc is bright enough to have even a rudimentary grasp of engineering.

And addressing the other mindless hordes, Tolkien was a fan and student of Nordic epics such as Beowulf. One of the characteristics of an epic is for the hero(es) to face overwhelming odds and overcome a great evil.
Also, there were other theatres of war during the War of the Ring, such as the Lonely Mountain, etc (more on this in the appendices). Perhaps the besiegers here are better equipped and organized? Just a thought. ^_^

And another thing! (Wow, I just keep on thinking of more stuff!) I seem to recall an episode (I think it's when Shagrat and Gorbag are talking after taking Frodo to the tower or Cirith Ungol) where two orcs are lamenting the fact that they have to march off to war when all they would rather be doing is quietly robbing passing travelers. While they are still evil, it would seem that even orcs don't necessarily like total war if they can avoid it.

Anyway, maybe this helps flesh out the evil masses a bit more.


Oh, it just occurred to me that perhaps this is a dead thread. . . forgive me as this is my first post. lol

Hmmm... it seems most of you underestimate the skills of the evil races of Endor...

-- D

sheesh, just because the orc/goblin/evil armor looks messed up, ragged, and uncomfortable doesnt mean its crap. Maybe they just made good armor that didnt look too nice?

good call kfmccall. After all, it doesn't have to be pretty to be functional. I think my computer is a good example. . .

Another thing you must remember is that forces of darkness were more easily allied with one another because they had a common goal, to rule all, and they were easily corrupted into things because they had a one track mind. While the world of men, elves and dwarves is divided they each keep to their own and don't like to associate with one another, and even within the world of men the different kingdoms don't get along. For instance Arthedain, Cardolan, and Rhudaur, never got along, they were at war all the time, and at one point Arthedain allied with Angmar to defeat the other two. And Angmar was an ally of Sauron.

Think of it this way. If I was to walk up to you tell you that I have a solution to your problem of being ran out of your lands (like the wainriders), or your land conquered (like the harad) wouldn't you jump at it. People are more likely to unite for revenge than to save the world. They are usually more concerned about getting what they want for themselves, than saving the world. Now if I walked up to you and said, hey we are starting a crusade to save the world, your not goin to join me as readily. It's just the way things are. And lastly, the orcs, and such creatures have nothing to lose. They don't have love, or passion, dreams, hopes desires, as the worlds of men, elves, and dwarves do. They have nothing to live for, and thus have nothing to lose in dying in battle. Whereas Elves, Men, and Dwarves, have many things to lose in battle.

I've said my peace


-The Raven-out

phwew, no flaming :lol: thank you for guiding me from my corrupted ways
and do you mean ewoks?

Wasn't this Rhudaur, which allied with Angmar? As I remember, Rhudaur's line of Dunedain-kings was exterminated and Rhudaur was ruled by a mountain-man and then Arthedain and Cardolan allied in order to fight against the evil king of Rhudaur, but the Dunedains of Cardolan were all killed on the barrow-downs (where Frodo was trapped by the barrow-wrights; in the appendix you can read that he was perhaps trapped in the grave of the last king of Cardolan). After Cardolan's defeat, Arthedain stoud alone against the evil realm of Angmar and was defeated 1974 third age and his last king Arvedui killed.

No he means Endor as in JJR Tolkien's Endor...

Also, your saying all the 'non-orcs' of Sauron are crude, and dumb. I believe that the Haradrim (i think those are the ones) weren't very crude. They seemed to have some pretty nice armor, and partially weapons.

Plus the orcs and such are crude but their brute force more than makes up for that, along with their numbers....

Anyway I think you got the point stalker.

My thoughts on Orcisg warfare is that Orcs employ the 'Wave Tactic'. That is, waves and waves of them keep coming (and dying) and eventually wear down the Enemy to the point where the Enemy is then easily overrun, and so the Orcs defeat them. There is no real Battle Strategy when using Orcs. During the Korean War, the Chinese used similar tactics when we overran North Korea and approached the Chinese Border. Though they were technologically inferior, the shear number of troops pushed us right back into South Korea. And they used the 'Human Wave' tactic, which meant hundreds sacrificing their lives just to gain a little bit of ground. It's also psychological warfare, since many American Soldiers couldn't understand why (example) a thousand Chinese troops were wasted just so that they (Chinese) could take a hill or a valley.

i forgot to leave them out
your right there not any of what i said i was wrong when i said that
but i thought gondor had 20,000-50,000 soldiers (off topic but that's what i heard or is that just something someone made up? and better then making another topic :] ) or was that in the second age?

I think the point to look at is that there are good elves, evil orcs, kind of good dwarves, evil Uruk-Hai, etc. It is only Men who are on both sides of the conflict.

The thinking that Gondor was superior to anywhere because their armor and weapons looked nice doesn't hold. What holds is that when Men keep to the side of good, and can remain at least somewhat virtuous, their civilization tends to advance, where without said 'morals' the race of men can fall as easily into barbarism and 'evil'.

That the numbers are so different between the two is what makes the point. It takes only a small number of virtuous men to overcome hordes of non-virtuous ones.

BTW - In most elder battles, unless the numbers were greater than 1.5:1, the battle wasn't even fought in the first place. The reason why we remember leaders such as Alexander, Hannibal, William Wallace, and even modern day Rommel are because they are the exception, not the rule. The rule of thumb was usually that numbers won. I don't care who you are - the Germans in WWII had greatly superior technology throughout most of the war - but sheer numbers overwhelmed the Tiger Tanks. The Spartans - the best man for man warriors of the time - held the pass for a time, but eventually the Persians were able to break through and slaughter them. At a great price, yes, but that is one of the things that makes the evil, evil: It doesn't matter at what cost we take an objective - there will always be more soldiers later.

Thanks for the soapbax

Lets just see how much you underestimate a decked out wildman charging at you with a massive axe. The best way to avoid being hit is to not be where the blade falls. :lol:

Yeah, I agree that the Germans had us technologically beat in WWII. One such case about German superiority, after the Americans discovered a two mile long tunnel in the ground (and a wind tunnel as well) that held many aircraft with Jets on them. They were first true Jetfighters, however the Germans lacked the resources (manpower) to finish the project and roll the Jets out and into production.

Historians now say that if we had delayed, and the Germans were able to get a good number of the aircraft out into combat, we would have lost the war. Or at least suffered HEAVY casualties. A sobering reminder of just how much luck was an important factor for us in WWII.

Also, something that shows how a number of greatly outnumbered men can defeat an enemy. The Battle of St. Crispens, in Henry V. I don't know how much of it is historical fact and how much is dramatized fiction, but the English fought the French, and the numbers were roughly 500 men (English) against Ten THOUSAND (French). The English won the battle,, and many people would say 'well, with substantial LOSSES yes they would have won.' But the fact (i think) is that the English suffered less than 25 causualities, whereas the French suffered somewhere in the Thousands. I remember in my Shakespear class, all of the students couldn't believe that the English suffered so little Casusalties when they were so greatly outnumbered.

the wonders of having a heavy stratigic and tactical advantage ^_^
actually the french won, but the english used the torpedo cheat from age of emporers i think they lost because of some certain greedy commanders or something who threw out there tactical leader and simply had there soldiers rush without the missle squad that was to suprise the english bowmen with some barrages. And also there was
Mud
The key word for describing the battle of Agincourt is mud. The battlefield was a freshly plowed field, and at the time of the battle, it had been raining continuously for several days. Soon after the battle started, it had thousands of English and French soldiers and horses running through it. Anywhere near the battlefield, the mud was at least ankle deep. Much of the time, it was up to the combatants' knees. Occasionally, it reached their waists. There are descriptions of horses floundering around in mud up to their bellies.

Falling off of a horse in the kind of mud that was at Agincourt was no joke, especially in armor. Indeed, many of the deaths (including that of the Duke of York) were caused by drowning.

The mud was undoubtedly a major factor in the lopsided English victory. The barefoot and in many cases bare legged English foot soldiers were vastly more mobile than the armored French.
http://www.aginc.net/battle/
the french had numbers and heavy armor and much larger force, but when nature is against you and the enemy can move in such conditions, numbers and armor can make little of a difference
it was pretty much the same as orcs running at 5 legions of bowmen up a hill, it wouldnt end well :lol: yes i'd be frightened by a wild man with an axe but not if i had an elven bow :lol:
and also another thing is the french had to attack like the persians against the spartans, one by one by one because there was a forest and all that broke there formations so they were also disorganized because of this :bye:

There are a lot of people who will say that Tolkien wrote in black and white scenarios. I strongly disagree with this. Most of Saurons allies had cause to hate Gondor for their own reasons and fought out of desire for revenge or further power. It can be noted that Numenor under it's later Kings was well known for its conquests in Middle-Earth. Subjugated peoples rarely find the yoke of a master to be a good thing.
On the issue of technology and equipment, there is nothing in any of the books to suggest that orcs or "wild men" fought with inferior training or weapons. There aren't many instances in the books where an individual "good guy" slays huge numbers of opponents and emerges unscathed. In fact there are many characters who are said to be great warriors who fall in battle. As such, none of the races of men, elves, dwarves or orcs should be taken lightly when faced in combat.
Sorry I'm rambling, long week. :bye:

One thing I liked when I watched some of the extras on the EE of the Two Towers was the part where the writers remarked about Tolkien almost never using "simple evil" except in the case of Sauron himself. Every other villain/"evil" race has a story behind their motivations to help Sauron (see Olorin's post) or somehow enslaved to the "simple evil" such as orcs. But even the brutish orcs would rather not fight in huge wars if the fear of Sauron and "his will" (whatever that is) isn't driving them (see last paragraph of my earlier post). Heck, even Morgoth is given more motivation to be evil--such as envy of Illuvatar and desire of the Silmarils. To my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), the only motivation mentioned for Sauron's evil was that he was in the host of Maiar that followed Morgoth for power.

Anyway, I guess my point is that Tolkien very rarely used such simple plot mechanics as saying, "He's evil because he just is." I get my hackles up when I see someone misunderstanding Tolkien (I'm such a nerd :bleh: ), because it always strikes me just how incredibly complex the world of Middle Earth is.

I think that if gondorian army is better than the others it's because, in more or less quantity, they are descendant from the numenorean race, and they have elven blood. They are stronger, more inteligent and they live more years than the other human of middle earth. If you live more, you can learn more thinks and your industrial knowlenge will be better than the one of a race that lives 50 years.

As I know, orc are great armorers, but they dont make beatiful weapons. (this has been said before, isn't it?)

And haradrim are simply different, I don't think they are lesser than rohirrim, but if you think they armor, weapons and tactic are made to fight in a desert or in a sabana (I don't know how is exactly the land of harad). it's normal that when they fight in pelenor fields they are in disavantatge.

nothing more and sorry for the english, I'm working I it's supposed that I don't have to be doing this

ONE COMMENT:
"The winner writes the history books"
so all we know of middle earth is from the perspective of the "good guys"

You sure?

Did orcs, trolls, goblins, etc know how to write???

Just joking...

I dont think the men of Harad were ill-equiped at all i mean they had decent armour i believe and rode oliphants, a close comparison of eliphants used by hannibal to deafeat the heavy armoured romans, its not fair to call all of the allies of sauron were ill-equiped.

Perhaps not, but taking the Hannibal evidence, he still had a goodly sized army along with elephants, which scared the Romans rather than caused real harm. Just having archers mounted atop the oliphants could not destroy an army; perhaps they would frighten it into routing, but if it held together (as would the Rohirimm) it would not win alone.

BTW If the Harad was a desert, why did oliphants live there? I know about the African elephant which i suppose is its closest "actual" relative, but wouldn't they still need a large amount of vegetation to survive, which suggests that there is no to Harad than has been said (or at least, read by me )